Leaves, EU immigration/FOM what is it you actually want?

[fakenamefornow]

Tourist visas?
Working visas?
No visas, just no work?
Maximum length of stay?
Funded how?

I am really clueless about what exactly you want.

Freedom of movement rights and obligations:

For stays of under three months: the only requirement for Union citizens is that they possess a valid identity document or passport. The host Member State may require the persons concerned to register their presence in the country within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.

For stays of over three months: the right of residence is subject to certain conditions. EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Union citizens do not need residence permits, although Member States may require them to register with the authorities. Family members of Union citizens who are not nationals of a Member State must apply for a residence permit, valid for the duration of their stay or a five-year period.

Thanks for posting that Fawful. Seems perfectly reasonable to me but I would like to hear from those who think it isn't. I believe there was a poster (Tryingtosaveup), who expressed displeasure at the effect immigration has on our cultural landscape. I'd like to understand why this concerns them?

shirley, I'd like to know that too. I've seen a lot of 'Britain is changing/it's not our country' type arguments but have not to date received an answer that makes it clear what Britain is changing to and why that would, anyway, make it not 'our' country (whoever 'we' are).

I believe there was a poster (Tryingtosaveup), who expressed displeasure at the effect immigration has on our cultural landscape. I'd like to understand why this concerns them?

I live in France and can speak about the effect immigration has on the cultural landscape from the perspective of someone who tries quite hard not to upset French people and undermine the cultural landscape.

I think it is important for immigrants to learn the language of the country they live in and to behave, in the public sphere, according to the laws and customs of the place they are in. I know many foreigners in Paris who are totally indistinguishable from French people when they are going about their daily lives. This does not mean that they have abandoned their home culture - they just don't think that it is their right to impose it upon their French hosts.

shirley, I'd like to know that too. I've seen a lot of 'Britain is changing/it's not our country' type arguments but have not to date received an answer that makes it clear what Britain is changing to and why that would, anyway, make it not 'our' country (whoever 'we' are).

cf "EU laws" that no one who voted leave can actually name.

but no working and payment for use of services such as NHS. Would check for criminal convictions as does the USA.

So, you want people to pay equal tax (or more tax), but not have equal access to services? Lovely.

I can understand wanting checks upon entry for employment viability, but once your in and paying into the system, I can't see what justifies shafting people on services. After all, many immigrants have paid more into the system than natives.

cf "EU laws" that no one who voted leave can actually name.

Yes, those too.

I agree with those who think it hasn't worked out well enough to keep, and don't like the EU insisting on their artificial link between FOM and international trade.

it's not an artificial link though, and if you don't believe me, look at FTA that don't have free movement.

What happens is that it's more difficult to lower production costs in wealthier countries because of the lack of labour competition. Then the incentive to move production becomes much higher. If we don't allow people from lower wage countries to come here and work, it starts to make much more sense to move your company to those countries.

The NHS, with its traditional free-at-point-of-delivery-to-anyone ethos, is a real issue for immigration. Most countries' health systems aren't as generous as the UK's.

State education is another issue where the UK is at a huge disadvantage versus other EU countries - a free education in English is a hell of a lot more advantageous to families from other EU countries than a free education in any other language.

I thought the UK was about in the middle in terms of spending on healthcare?

It's not about spending on healthcare, it's about whether people can access free healthcare on arrival in the UK.

Thanks Bobo. I certainly agree that people who live in the UK should attempt to speak the language and respect the culture. Is there a suggestion that EU migrants shouldn't? I welcome other cultures as I believe they enrich us all. France tends to be less tolerant of other cultures, which probably means they have kept theirs more intact - whether good or bad is another topic - yet they have FOM and, even, Schengen.

The NHS, with its traditional free-at-point-of-delivery-to-anyone ethos, is a real issue for immigration. Most countries' health systems aren't as generous as the UK's.

why? you have to take the good with the bad. While additional people puts pressure on services, many of those additional people are in fact NHS staff, and are young so don't use the NHS as much. So, is the net affect a burden?

We have to separate issues that are the result of our own government's complete incompetence (for example, housing), and the pressures put on by more people.

Frankly, if you are a family living in rural Poland/Romania/Bulgaria etc, free healthcare and free education in English are absolutely massively attractive.

Rural Poland/Romania/Bulgaria just don't offer the same attractions to the British. It's not symmetrical. FOM would work if there were more symmetry.

Oh sorry, Bobo, I got the wrong end of the stick.

I certainly agree that people who live in the UK should attempt to speak the language and respect the culture. Is there a suggestion that EU migrants shouldn't?

I think that no-one cares much what migrants do when, to all intents and purposes, they blend in and are invisible.

Frankly, if you are a family living in rural Poland/Romania/Bulgaria etc, free healthcare and free education in English are absolutely massively attractive.

it's as "free" as it is to anyone else - it's taxpayer funded. So, if someone from rural Poland works in the UK, it's not "free" education: their taxes are paying for it.

Re free healthcare - are we not supposed to reclaim the costs from patients' home countries? I understand that we have very poor systems in place and massively under claim.

No, the newly arrived Polish/Bulgarian/Romanian may, in due course, contribute to current education funding but they and their families have not contributed over many years to setting up the system (capital costs, if you like.

Re free healthcare - are we not supposed to reclaim the costs from patients' home countries? I understand that we have very poor systems in place and massively under claim.

That's for tourists.

EU citizens tend to fit in well into British culture. Most of them have a Christian background and have similar values to us.

I would like countries like Poland to do more to attract migrants to their country. Otherwise you end up with lots of ghost towns. Maybe we need to look at how a balance in numbers can be achieved.

Perhaps British universities in conjunction with existing foreign universities could set up courses in English in countries that have a low cost of living like Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Romania or Greece. The British govement could allow students to use their loan to pay for the costs of these courses.

Sorry to go off topic for a minute. Bobo I'm interested to know what you think of the French system of paying for Dr appointments and then claiming back. This seems a sensible idea to me, does it work in practice? I know it would cause outrage here ofc.

I think the point of the EU is not symmetry at all times, but greater equality over time.

The UK attracts people from less wealthy countries now, but it's not too long ago that Brits had to go to better-off EU countries to find work that paid enough. Remember Auf Wiedersehn Pet?

No, the newly arrived Polish/Bulgarian/Romanian may, in due course, contribute to current education funding but they and their families have not contributed over many years to setting up the system (capital costs, if you like.

At what point would you suggest they have contributed enough, keeping in mind that many immigrants have contributed a lot more than many natives? DP and I have been a high rate tax payer beginning two days after we arrived in the UK. Additionally, while immigrants never contributed to the system until they arrived, they also never took from it. You get fully functioning educated adults, ready to work. Sounds like a deal to me.

If we are going to do nitty gritty accounting, let's do it right.

To answer the question Shirley asked me earlier:

My problem is with the zero control on numbers - that's it.

As part of the free movement of people tenet as a non-negotiable part of EU membership there is no way for an individual country to control their population size/fluctuations.

As a country independent of the 'fundamental rules' of the EU we can make our own decisions and alter/change as is necessary dependent on circumstance.

For eg - shortage of bricklayers in london? Advertise for bricklayers.
Once they're here, they're here - normal citizenship processes apply.

Too many bricklayers in London, therefore the work is sparse and any extra bricklayers would then lead to depressed wages etc?
Bricklayers are on the 'controlled' list.

Thats a very basic analogy of what freedom of workers and immigration controls means to me.